CHRIS MATTHEWS: Republican senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is a member of the Armed Services and the Intelligence Committees. What do you make of what Senator Kerry said, Senator Saxby?
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I disagree with Senator Kerry with respect to the president's not just silence but kind of mutation (SIC) on this. You know, I thought the president was right to give it a day or two to see what direction we thought these elections were going in, Chris. But now it's pretty obvious from these large demonstrations all over Iran that these elections were held in a fraudulent way. And we are a beacon of hope for freedom and democracy around the world, and one thing we've always stood for is free and open elections.
Here we know that we've got a leader in Iran who was elected in a fraudulent election, and I think it's incumbent upon this president, just as other world leaders like Sarkozy and the prime minister of Canada have come out very strongly in opposition to these elections and what's going on, for him to take a stand that's a pretty strong stand, and we just simply haven't seen that. I don't think it's the right direction that America needs to be perceived as taking in this situation.
MATTHEWS: Well, we've got a long history of interfering in Iran. We interfered back when they had a democracy in the early part of the '50s, when Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA went in there and overturned those elections and put in the "peacock throne" and enforced a monarchy kind of government. Do you think we're credible as critics of democracy of Iran? Is the United States credible in the eyes of those people and those crowds as caring about democracy in Iran?
CHAMBLISS: Oh, I don't think there's any question but what we are. You know, they don't have to agree with us on everything. The people that are marching in the streets are not marching in a pro-American way. They're simply marching in a protest of an election that was stolen from them. And as Americans, we ought to be willing to stand up and say, Hey, these people are right and they ought to have a free and open election in Iran, irrespective of whether we have disagreements with them on a major scale on other issues. But certainly, we have credibility.
MATTHEWS: Well, I guess it comes down to the question of nationalism and countries resenting outside influence. I know we would resent it. We would always resent it, any other country getting involved in our election, especially the disputed election of 2000. We don't want anybody else talking to us about our elections. Khrushchev back in '60 wanted Kennedy to win, but he didn't say a word because he knew it would help Nixon. Wouldn't it help Ahmadinejad for us to say, We really don't like the results of your election, we would have preferred it if Mousavi had won?
CHAMBLISS: Well, you know, that's not the point.
MATTHEWS: Why isn't it? Because from the point of view over there, won't they be saying, Hey, you Americans are rooting for the opposition because Ahmadinejad doesn't like you guys?
CHAMBLISS: Well, I don't know that anybody was rooting for the opposition. I guess you could say that we would have preferred for the other guy to have won, but we don't know if he would have been any different. But the point of the matter is that the Iranian people ought to have the right to a free and open election. They didn't have that. They ought to have the right to choose who they want. And we're not meddling by simply saying that these elections were not conducted in a free and open and democratic manner. They advertised them to be that, but it's pretty obvious that they weren't.
And for the United States president to be silent on this, Chris, while other leaders are speaking out, I think puts us in a position of saying, Well, you know, we're just going to go along with whoever gets elected over there, and that's not-that's just not right.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of the president's concern that our history over there-he's voiced this in the Cairo speech-that our history over there of getting involved with Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA, overthrowing those elections back in the '50s, getting rid of their democracy when they had one, gives us such a bad reputation in that country that if we go in there now, it'll look like we're just trying to grab influence in Iran again to our advantage, to get the oil back, to get the influence back that we had there under the shah?
CHAMBLISS: Well, that election was, what, almost 60 years ago now. The world has changed dramatically since then. And I dare say that you go up to any of those people in Teheran who are protesting in the streets and say, Hey, what about the United States meddling in your election in the '50s, they would shake their heads, like, What in the world are you talking about?
That's not what they're protesting about. These folks are protesting an election that was stolen from them last week. And that's why it's so critically important that America speak with a loud and clear voice in support of free, open, and democratic elections. And frankly, Chris, we're not doing that from an administration standpoint. You're hearing folks like John McCain and others out there strongly advocating this position, and they are the ones that are being heard by the Iranian people and not the president of the United States.
MATTHEWS: OK. There's two points I think you might agree and disagree with Senator Kerry on. The one point is he said there is a difference between Ahmadinejad's regime and this alternative that we're seeing here, basically, supported by those people in the streets. Do you agree with him that we might be better off with one than the other?
CHAMBLISS: Well, certainly, we know what we've got in Ahmadinejad and it's not good. I mean, this guy gets up throwing hate balls every day towards the United States.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CHAMBLISS: So it can't be any worse, and I would have to say that I probably agree with John there.
MATTHEWS: What about opening a dialogue at some point with Mousavi, the opposition leader, if he doesn't get the job? Would you-as a senator on these key committees you're on, Armed Services and Intelligence, do you think it might be useful for our people, you or others of your colleagues, to get in contact with this guy and start talking to him in some way?
CHAMBLISS: Well, I'm not sure what benefit that would be. If this guy is going to keep getting squashed in elections and his voice not allowed to be heard, I'm not sure what the dialogue would be. Here is what I do think, though...
MATTHEWS: Well, they talk to you. I mean, other leaders from other countries talk to opposition leaders in this country all the time to get a feel for this country.
CHAMBLISS: Well, here's what I think, Chris. I think for us to open a dialogue with Ahmadinejad now would be absolutely the wrong thing to do because, you know, we know this guy has been elected with a fraudulent election process. So you know, is our president going to have a dialogue with a guy that we know was elected in an election that was stolen from somebody else? I don't think that's right. Now, whether we ought to talk to the other folks or not, I guess is a matter that the State Department will have under consideration shortly.
MATTHEWS: Well, senator, thank you very much, and I agree with you on one point. I am thrilled by this opposition over there. I am thrilled at this public demonstration of hundreds of thousands of people, that they believe in democracy and want a fair election over there. And if the president can't say so, you and I can certainly say so. Thank you very much, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
